Important Dates

• Submission of Abstract: 10^th April 2019
• Intimation of Acceptance of abstract: 12^th April
• Submission of Full Paper: 22^nd April 2019
• Intimation of Acceptance of final paper: 24^th April 2019
• Date of Seminar: April 30—May 01, 2019

Concept Note

This seminar may be seen as an attempt towards developing an organic understanding of the theory of justice for the developing world and beyond. It’s an attempt to develop a framework of justice which is best suited for the Indian needs while engaging with the contemporary practices of justice in India. Another running theme of the seminar is to go beyond the academic categories and concepts which make little sense to the lived-experiences of Indian masses. The seminar will try to analyze the dilemmas of justice both in practice and theory. Given the rich philosophical traditions of India, its cross-cutting diversity and issues specifically related to India, like Caste, the seminar will interrogate the question of justice from varied lenses specifically suited to Indian needs. We will try to evaluate the social justice framework in India from the standpoint of universalist western paradigms. An attempt will also be made to go beyond Eurocentric theories of justice while developing an Indigenous organic framework of justice.

Therefore,  we are trying to move beyond the traditional conceptualization of justice in terms of desert, virtue, distribution, fairness and bring into the fold of justice the emerging concepts like Capabilitarianism, Svaraj and Recognition in global south with special reference to India. With revisiting of Mahatma Gandhi and B.R. Ambedkar and emergence of Amartya Sen, Neera Chandhoke, Rajeev Bhargava, Gurpreet Mahajan, Aakash Singh Rathore on the Indian academic scene, there is a quest for developing an Indian theory of Justice. The assertion of Ambedkarite forces, marginalization of minorities and adivasis and emergence of a mammoth Indian Urban Middle Class has changed the dynamics of academic discourse in India in a big way. After more than seventy years of Indian Independence and its interaction with the fast-changing global world, the academic categories to capture Indian reality are falling short. This conference attempts to meaningfully engage with the ground reality of the Indian masses vis-a-vis the academic theorization while contesting the western gaze on Global South.

Principal Theme

Towards a Just India: Challenges and Prospects

Suggested Sub-Themes

Section I: Theoretical Debates and Underpinnings on Justice

• Classical Paradigms of Justice
• Contemporary Paradigms: Liberal, Neo-Liberal and Communitarian Perspectives on Justice
• Towards Integrating Classical and Contemporary Paradigms of Justice
• Non-Western Perspectives on Justice
• The Universalist and Relativist Conceptions of Justice
• Global Justice: Implications for Developing World
• Universalization and Institutionalization of Welfare State: Normative and Empirical Dimensions
• Democracy and Justice: Representation. Recognition, Participation, Inclusion and Redistribution
• Capability Paradigm of Justice and Global South
• Post-Modern and Post-Colonial Theorization of Justice 

Section II: Issues and Debates in India

• The Constitutionalization of Justice in India
• Human Rights and Justice in Indian Context
• Legal Initiatives and Social Rights Jurisprudence
• Redistribution, Recognition and Representation Debates in India
• Multicultural Framework and Justice in India
• Affirmative Action Programs: Policies, Performance, Implementation and Outcomes
• The Democratic Practice, Complex Diversity and Justice in India
• Intersectionality of Caste, Class, and Gender
• Rawlsian Justice: Exploring the Possibilities of Engagement in India
• Contextualizing Communitarian Approaches to Justice with reference to India
• Amartya Sen’s Idea of Justice: Deconstructing Contemporary India
• Neo-Liberal Tilt of Indian State and Its implications for Marginalized Sections
• Globalization and Its Impact on Marginalized Sections
• Justice in Digital India: Implications of WhatsApp, Twitter, Facebook
• The Question of Growth with Equity
• The Issue of Migration, Displacement, and Development: State Corporatism and Social Movements
• Land Acquisition and the Question of Justice
• Communal Violence and Justice
• State of Gender Justice
• Public Interest Litigation and Legal Aid
• Ancient Hindu Traditions, Hindutva and Justice
• Buddhist Ethics and Justice
• Islamic Perspectives on Justice
• Gandhi’s Conception of Justice
• Ambedkarite Vision of Justice
• State of Environmental Justice and Sustainable Development

Important Note

• The participants will not be allowed to present the paper without the prior submission of the complete paper by 22nd April 2019.
• Selected articles will be published in the form of a book from a reputed publisher.
• Proper time will be given to revise the papers for publication in the backdrop of the critical inputs in the seminar.
• Board and lodging will be provided to the outstation participants.
• TA may be reimbursed as per needs of the participants and availability of funds.

Guidelines for Abstract Submission

The abstract should not be more than 400 words in MS word only (PDF files will not be accepted) along with the title of the proposed paper, Presenting Author, Second/Third Author (if any), email address, contact no., affiliating institution. Abstracts should be sent to [email protected]

About the University

The Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) is a premier Central University included as an institution of ‘National Importance’ in the VII Schedule of the Constitution of India with several faculties and maintained institutions. The Aligarh Muslim University was Accredited by NAAC in ‘A’ grade. AMU draws students from all over the country as well as foreign countries. Imbibing the objective tenor of the west and preserving the oriental tradition, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, the great visionary, established the Mohammadan Anglo-Oriental College on May 24, 1875 with a resolve to initiate western education amongst Muslims and liberate their mind from out-moded patterns of thought and behaviour. The vision became a reality in 1920 when this College matured to the status of the Aligarh Muslim University. Since then it has ever been expanding, diversifying and relentlessly working towards keeping its promise to the commitment of its founder. The residential character of this University, where most of the staff and students reside on the campus itself, contributes greatly to the country’s multi-religious, multi-social and multi-lingual character. There are thirteen faculties and more than a hundred Departments of Studies with a teaching strength of around 2,000 faculty members disseminating knowledge to more than thirty thousand students.

About the Department

 The Department of History and Politics of the Aligarh Muslim University was established in 1922. The present Department of Political Science became a separate and independent Department in 1948. Presently the Department has 26 faculty members. Apart from offering B.A. (Hons.) in Political Science the department also offers M.A., M.Phil and Ph.D. programs in Political Science, Public Administration and Human Rights. Since 1967 the Department has been publishing a research journal, Indian Journal of Politics, [ISSN: 0303 – 9957] which has been indexed in the Current Contents and abstracted in the International Political Science Abstracts (Paris).

About Aligarh

Aligarh is located on the main Delhi-Kolkata rail route at a distance of 135 km south-east of Delhi (Approximately two hours journey from Delhi). Aligarh is only 82 km from Agra and 60 km from Mathura (by road), two very famous places of historical interest and tourist attraction. The campus is two kms away from Aligarh Railway Station.

Registration Fee

Faculty: Rs. 2000/-

Research Scholars/Students:Rs. 1000/-

Registration will be on-spot prior to the Inaugural Session.

The Committee

Patron                 

Prof. Tariq Mansoor (Vice-Chancellor, AMU)

Coordinator

Prof. Nigar Zuberi (Chairperson, D/o Political Science)

Convenor           

Dr. Khurram (+91 92197 33327)

Co-Convenors  

• Dr. Mohammad Aslam (+91 99990 58968)
• Mr. Akbar (+91 90138 98178)

Advisory Committee

• Prof. A. R. Vijapur
• Prof. Arif Hameed
• Prof. M. Asmer Beg
• Prof. Md. Nafees Ansari
• Prof.Arshi Khan
• Prof. Iftekhar Ahemmed

Organizational Committee

• Prof. Aftab Alam
• Prof. Farhana Kausar
• Dr. Iqbalur Rehman
• Dr. M. Mohibul Haque
• Dr. M. Naseem Khan
• Dr. Md. Aftab Alam

Email: [email protected]

The post #Justice: ICSSR-Sponsored National Seminar on ‘Towards a Just India’. appeared first on Awaam India.

The recent diabolical attack on the people of the Muslim community in New Zealand, who were there for offering Jumah Salah (Friday Prayers) in Christchurch, very clearly explains the popular apprehensions in the West about the non-western immigrant and non-western civilization as a threat to them.

But these types of unfoldings of events were earlier predicted by some world public intellectuals giving them a color of a fault line between the Christian West and the Islam. Popularized through some events and empirical turn, Samuel P. Huntington was a great one among them.

Huntington was among the most plentiful and influential political scientists of his generation. His legacy has become inextricably linked to a Foreign Affairs article published three decades ago. In his article The Clash of Civilizations (1993), Huntington put forward the idea about what the post-cold-war world might look like and the debate has not been abandoned since then.

Huntington believed that the center of the world was shifting and the conflict would be defined by culture rather than ideology or economic premises. Nation-state, argued Huntington, would remain as the main actor but the conflict would occur between the nation and group of different cultures, and “fault lines between the civilizations will be the battle line of future”.

The current attack on Muslims at two mosques in Christchurch is one of the most important testimonies of being true of Huntington prophecy. The choosing of particular place and community by the killer uncovered the nature of hatred and clash simmering in the mind of like-minded people. This denotes the sense of Islamophobia and cultural threat to their western community by Islam and also the fear of domination by Muslim immigrants.

Is so-called Islamization of the west a threat to the natives’ culture and religion? While in Newzeland just one percent is the total population of Muslims, is it another phase of the debate? Growth in migration since globalization booming during 90s, As a result westerners increasingly fear “ that they are now being invaded not by armies and tanks but by migrants who speak other languages, worship other gods, belong to other cultures, and, they fear, will take their jobs, occupy their land, live off the welfare system, and threaten their way of life”.

Huntington was wrestling through the challenges of what “culture” was to look like in a globalizing world. The challenges that Huntington was facing as he looked at the conflict that would occur in various instances between “us” and “them” was primarily about understanding better what “us” meant in the new world and clash thesis was a part of how he sought to work out to understand those relationships.

Why is it a touchstone for nearly all contemporary debates about the capacity of different groups to live together in relative amity, not enmity? Because it exposes the hope and fear of globalization and its perfect imagination of post-cold war world scenario of conflict. After the defeat of the USSR, it was also the trend that enabled the religion to resume its long-abandoned place in global politics.

Exiled to marginalization after 1648, the sudden demise of the cold war and the USSR and its secular ideology, opened the way for new focus on “culture”. Reciprocal response by the US after 9/11 was real proof of the clash of civilizations between the “Christian West” and the “Islamic world”.

Huntington viewed in 1993 Islam as the great threat because “they hate us”, in 2004 he saw Hispanic immigration as the great danger because they aren’t us. It was not about hate, it was about us. If civilizations were the main fault line of the international politics “we” would be just “us” at peace with ourselves in our own place and everyone else in theirs.

The author is a research scholar at the Department of Political Science, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh.

The post Revisiting Huntington’s Legacy in the Post-Christchurch times appeared first on Awaam India.

An initiative of the women, for the women, by the women! The summit will be first of its kind in the history of Women’s College Students’ Union (WCSU).

“The hand that rocks the cradle, the procreator, the mother of tomorrow, a woman shapes the destiny of civilization”. Talking about equality over a cup of coffee is no more a taboo. But its implementation is certainly opaque.

Our life and all of its associations, we’ll all agree, have a tendency to fall in a lull, pretty soon and pretty often. We’ll be productive a day, only for it to be followed by a week of idleness. We’ll have the most intellectually stimulating time for a while, only for it to be followed by a dwindle in all things intellectual the following days.

But the importance of spreading words to the world is always a concern. To spread such awareness and empower one another, Women’s College Students’ Union has taken an innovative and unprecedented step through organizing the Women Leadership Summit 2019.

Prior to this event, the fifth AMU Literary Festival highlighted the significance of Literature and Society; lectures by Nazia Erum (author), Sagarika Ghose (journalist) and many empowered women were conducive to look closely into the matter of women empowerment and we are here again with an amazing line-up of pertinent and refreshing discourse.

What women empowerment actually means is not deifying women, rather asking for equal rights and opportunities defying patriarchy. Women have so far been successful in raising their voice against gender inequality in the post-independence era, but there is still a long way to go till women no more seek validation from the male strata of society.

Equal political rights, economic rights, judicial strength are yet to be achieved completely. In this trying era that we’ve set foot in, we witness a dichotomy at play in regards to the status of women in this world; where one face of reality is the strewn bodies of women stripped off their consent and accord, violated to the core of their being-body and soul; beaten down to a pulp-physically, also their thoughts, their voices; grappling for an iota of confidence, and the flip side ushers us into a world of strong-headed women with their chin up and burning scaffolds of stereotypes to the ground and weakening the foundation of patriarchy in the society.

Women as social activists, presidents, artists, Olympians are a few to name, to believe in ourselves, spring into action and find our strengths, clamp the world in our “delicate” fists. It is likely to say that a woman does not become powerful and strong when she competes and defeats a man, it is anything but. She rises to power when she competes with her inhibitions, her shortcomings and strives to morph into a better and improved version of herself.

The summit will see women speakers from all over the country speaking on issues that matter and that need to be spoken of. The very first of its sort, boasting impressive palette of paramount and eminent female figures like Shyamolie Singh, Fatima Nafees, Teesta Setalvad, Vrinda Gover, Irena Akbar, Prof. Roop Rekha Verma and lastly Arundhati Roy.

This intriguing mix of unprecedented women leaders will grace the varsity from 26th till 28th of March. It will be an interaction with the empowered change makers of our society, getting a very close insight into their struggles, journey towards change and progress.

In this day and age of women, their stories would definitely strike a chord within all. This celebration of women power should not be missed for its unparalleled opportunity to be inspired, implored, to connect and engage with such exceptional leaders and open oneself to enlarge their worldview and percipience.

When we bring women together at events like these, women who are clearly advancing as leaders and women who have already achieved the desired shows that we are not alone. We get a chance to hear about the struggles of being a woman.

But to witness such a positive change where women are willing to communicate in order to help each other is definitely a lesson and motivation in itself. For the first in the history of AMU, Women’s college is here to paint a sky of limitless ambitions, requesting all to gather, get set and dream.

The post AMU: WCSU to organise Women Leadership Summit 2019 appeared first on Awaam India.

The post [Video] Irfan Habib | Women Education at AMU: A Historical Perspective appeared first on Awaam India.

The post Video: Book Launch and Discussion ‘The Cambridge Companion to Sayyid Ahmad Khan’ appeared first on Awaam India.

“From complete ignorance of 70s to vague indifference of 80s to creeping curiosity of 90s to growing familiarity of the first decade to the inevitable acceptance of the second decade of the 21st century-the perception of ‘Chaath’ outside Bihar has undergone a complete metamorphosis.

Even within Bihar, it used to be a mostly localised affair before turning into a marker of Bihari cultural identity. How and why did this transformation come about?

Historically, Bihar has been bereft of an overarching and dominant great tradition in the cultural realm. Be it dance or music or art or architecture or painting or other cultural aspects, the scale was essentially local. This could mainly be attributed to the absence of princely states in Bihar who patronized culture elsewhere leading to cultural efflorescence.

The pathological impact of the permanent settlement meant the emergence of a hierarchy of exploitative zamindars who had neither the wherewithal nor the inclination to promote culture. Rent- seeking, brutal and philistine, it was beyond them to patronize culture.

In an era of increased interaction, exposure and migration, the absence of a great cultural tradition would become a sore point. Against this background, the festival of ‘ Chhath’ with its geo-cultural specificities moved to the fore as a reference point, a rallying point to emphasise on its uniqueness and a cultural marker of Bihari identity.

The transition was also facilitated by the Bihari migration, exodus and diaspora. Denied of a terra firma beneath their feet, often at the receiving end of manifest or subterranean xenophobia and often adrift in alien and alienating places, they would cling to their cultural- religious resources with tenacity. The observance of ‘Chhath festival with its demonstrative rituals sought to fulfil this need.

Migration and politics or vote-bank politics to be precise- go together. As our metropolises became demographically more and more diffuse and electoral politics became fiercer and as the traditionally decisive core constituency lost its mojo, it was only inevitable for cultural sensitivities of the migrants to be assaulted on the one hand but pandered to on the other hand. As the former has limitations in a democracy, the latter would gain traction. The increasing primacy being accorded to ‘Chhath’ could be understood in this context.

All the same, Hinduism is a god-hungry religion with multiplicity of ever increasing beliefs and rituals marking its existence. This explains cross- cultural exchanges. If the words about efficacy of a God or even a Godman spread around, the instinctive response is of acceptance and not resistance or rejection. It is as much true in the case of Sai Baba as Nirmal Baba. The same holds true for Chhath too. With insistence on the purity of observances and wish- fulfilling intimations, its appeal only gets magnified even for those who have had nothing to do with it.

The crystallization of Bihari identity around Chhath gained critical mass in the 90s. As Bihar remained politically adrift in the turbulent decade and as the jokes went around that Pakistan could take Kashmir but with Bihar as collateral liability, there would be inevitable closing of ranks. The festival of ‘Chhath’ with emphasis on community and togetherness of solidarity fulfilled this need.

And social media with its demonstrative effect, dissemination of news, views and images and popularization of exotica does the rest. As the non- Biharis wait anxiously for their Bihari friends to return with ‘thekua’ likening it to hard-sweet cake and even donuts, it becomes increasingly clear that the transformation of a little into a potentially great tradition is well underway.”

The post ‘Chhath’ and the formation of Bihari identity appeared first on Awaam India.

Government Of India Treating Human Rights Organisations Like Criminal Enterprises

By Amnesty International India
Bengaluru/Delhi: 26 October 2018 11:07 am

Amnesty India’s bank accounts have been frozen by the Enforcement Directorate, effectively stopping our work. Amnesty India is thus the latest target of the government’s assault on civil society in the country. The accounts of Greenpeace India were frozen earlier this month.

“Government authorities are increasingly treating human rights organisations like criminal enterprises”, said Aakar Patel. “As an organisation committed to the rule of law, our operations in India have always conformed with our national regulations. The principles of transparency and accountability are at the heart of our work.”

Around 1:30 pm on 25 October, a group of officers from the Enforcement Directorate entered our premises and locked the gates behind them. They ordered the Amnesty India staff to remain in office, shut their laptops, and not use their mobile phones.

The focus of the Enforcement Directorate’s questioning was the relationship between two entities: Amnesty International India Pvt Ltd and Amnesty International India Foundation.

Most of the documents asked for during the search were available in the public domain or were already filed with the relevant authorities. Details of our current structure, which was the focus of much of the questioning, have been available on our website since 2014.

However, ahead of the raids, the Indian authorities leaked a cache of their internal documents marked “secret” that appear to cast Amnesty India’s operations as a dark web of intrigue.

“Our work in India, as elsewhere, is to uphold and fight for universal human rights. These are the same values that are enshrined in the Indian Constitution and flow from a long and rich Indian tradition of pluralism, tolerance and dissent,” said Aakar Patel.

“We could not agree more with the Prime Minister when he says that periods of repression, like during the Emergency, have left a stain on India’s history. Sadly, those dark days are now casting a shadow over India again. Instead of protecting human rights, as it vowed to do, the government is now targeting the people who fight for them”, said Aakar Patel.

Over 40 lakh Indians have supported Amnesty India’s work over the last six years and around one lakh Indians have made a financial contribution.

The post Amnesty International, India issues press note on govt.’s heckling with the Rights organisation appeared first on Awaam India.

The truth is that it’s far easier to make a bomb than to educate 400 million people. (Arundhati Roy, The End of Imagination)

Arundhati Roy, famous as the Booker Prize-winning author for The God of Small Things, with her out of the box works has given India the true picture of what we call dissent. Roy’s recent fiction book The Ministry of Utmost Happiness has brought the everlasting critiques of socialization culture within our society.

Roy’s essay The End of Imagination is the most critically analysed, scanned, and scrutinized tale of the events held in May 1998 at Pokhran. It, in detail, criticises narrative of the test of a nuclear weapon conducted at Pokhran. She highlights the basic fundamental needs and wants of the people in her essay, which the government had ignored in light of gaining a political edge and power to call itself the powerful and developing country. She has put it staunchly where the government has blatantly ignored the education, nutrition, shelter, poverty of 400 million people:

If only, if the only nuclear war was just another kind of war. If only it was about the usual things – nations and territories, gods and histories. If only those of us who dread it are worthless moral cowards who are not prepared to die in defence of our beliefs. If only nuclear war was the kind of war in which countries battle countries and men battle men. But it isn’t.

If there is a nuclear war, our foes will not be China or America or even each other. Our foe will be the earth herself. Our cities and forests, our fields and villages will burn for days. Rivers will turn to poison. The air will become fire. The wind will spread the flames. When everything there is to burn has burned and the fires die, smoke will rise and shut out the sun. The earth will be enveloped in darkness. There will be no day – only interminable night.

What shall we do then, those of us who are still alive? Burned and blind and bald and ill, carrying the cancerous carcasses of our children in our arms, where shall we go? What shall we eat? What shall we drink? What shall we breathe?

The Head of the Health, Environment and Safety Group of the Bhabha Atomic Research Center in Bombay has a plan. He declared that India could survive a nuclear war. His advice is that in the event of nuclear war we take the same safety measures like the ones that scientists have recommended in the event of accidents at nuclear plants. Take iodine pills, he suggests.

And other steps such as remaining indoors, consuming only stored water and food and avoiding milk. Infants should be given powdered milk. ‘People in the danger zone should immediately go to the ground floor and if possible to the basement.’

What do you do with these levels of lunacy? What do you do if you’re trapped in an asylum and the doctors are all dangerously deranged?

Questioning the Governments

Roy’s essay completely unmasks the government’s obsession with the power, may it be any country in the world. There exists no country in the world, where people want war and massacre with their life. They only want peace and harmony with the development and progress of the society, but not at the cost of innocent deaths and massacring of innocent women and children. Roy puts it:

In any case who’s the ‘you’ and who’s the ‘enemy’? Both are only governments. Governments change. They wear masks within masks. They molt and re-invent themselves all the time. The one we have at the moment, for instance, does not even have enough seats to last a full term in office, but demands that we trust it to do pirouettes and party tricks with nuclear bombs even as it scrabbles around for a foothold to maintain a simple majority in Parliament.

Roy is arguing with very far-sighted consequences that the nations of the world will suffer when weapon creations will be justified to save the boundaries and territories of the nation, and then there will be a market which will sell ammunition, powerful chemical weapons to justify the policy of international relations and foreign policy.

The irony will be the ignorance of the interest of the common citizens. And then the planet earth will bristle with beautiful missiles. There will be a new world order. The dictatorship, their hypocritical policies to establish the fact, saving the nation with war but only for peace.

America’s Contribution

Roy gives the credit for creation of this horrific fear and traumatized policy of waging war to build its economy to the United States of America. She quotes in her essay:

But let us pause to give credit where it’s due. Who must we thank for all this? The men who made it happen. The Masters of the Universe. Ladies and gentlemen, the United States of America! Come on up here folks, stand up and take a bow. Thank you for doing this to the world. Thank you for making a difference. Thank you for showing us the way. Thank you for altering the very meaning of life.

From now on it is not dying we must fear, but living. All I can say to every man, woman and sentient child in India, and over there, just a little way away in Pakistan, is: take it personally. Whoever you are –Hindu, Muslim, urban, agrarian – it doesn’t matter. The only good thing about nuclear war is that it is the single most egalitarian idea that man has ever had.

On the day of reckoning, you will not be asked to present your credentials. The devastation will be indiscriminate. The bomb isn’t in your backyard. It’s in your body. And mine. Nobody, no nation, no government, no man, no god has the right to put it there. We’re radioactive already, and the war hasn’t even begun. So stand up and say something. Never mind if it’s been said before. Speak up on your own behalf. Take it very personally.

India’s Neophilia

When the nuclear test at Pokhran was successful, the news channels and the newspapers said it loud and clear the phenomenal job was done in the history of India to add one strongest pillar to safeguarding its defence system was the nuclear bomb. Even some went repeatedly calling this as” They are nationalism tests, not just nuclear “. Roy quotes this situation in her essay as:

This has been hammered home, over and over again. The bomb is India. India is the bomb. Not just India, Hindu India. Therefore, be warned, any criticism of it is not just anti-national but anti-Hindu. (Of course in Pakistan the bomb is Islamic. Other than that, politically, the same physics applies.) This is one of the unexpected perks of having a nuclear bomb. Not only can the government use it to threaten the Enemy, they can use it to declare war on their own people. Us.

When I told my friends that I was writing this piece, they cautioned me. ‘Go ahead,’ they said, ‘but first make sure you’re not vulnerable. Make sure your papers are in order. Make sure your taxes are paid.’ My papers are in order. My taxes are paid. But how can one not be vulnerable in a climate like this? Everyone is vulnerable. Accidents happen. There’s safety only in acquiescence. As I write, I am filled with foreboding. In this country, I have truly known what it means for a writer to feel loved (and, to some degree, hated too). Last year I was one of the items being paraded in the media’s end-of the- year National Pride Parade. Among the others, much to my mortification, were a bomb-maker and an international beauty queen. Each time a beaming person stopped me on the street and said ‘You have made India proud’ (referring to the prize I won, not the book I wrote), I felt a little uneasy. It frightened me then and it terrifies me now, because I know how easily that swell, that tide of emotion, can turn against me. Perhaps the time for that has come. I’m going to step out from under the fairy lights and say what’s on my mind.

It’s this;

If protesting against having a nuclear bomb implanted in my brain is anti-Hindu and anti-national, then I secede. I hereby declare myself an independent, mobile republic. I am a citizen of the earth. I own no territory. I have no flag. I’m female but have nothing against eunuchs. My policies are simple. I’m willing to sign any nuclear non-proliferation treaty or nuclear test ban treaty that’s going. Immigrants are welcome. You can help me design our flag. My world has died. And I write to mourn its passing.

India’s nuclear tests, the manner in which they were conducted, the euphoria with which they have been greeted (by us) is indefensible. To me, it signifies dreadful things. The end of imagination.

Politics and Political Gains

Roy opens up in her essay saying the major steps taken in the functioning of government in India was the need for politics and its later form- the political gain. She in her essay critically analyses the immediate need of the political class which triggered two major political steps of devastation in the country i.e the nuclear bomb and demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya.

The nuclear bomb is the most anti-democratic, anti-national, anti-human, outright evil thing that man has ever made. If you are religious, then remember that this bomb is Man’s challenge to God. It’s worded quite simply: We have the power to destroy everything that You have created. If you’re not religious, then look at it this way. This world of ours is four billion, six hundred million years old. It could end in an afternoon.

 She explains the whole theory of the use of power and politics. Is this why it becomes an important essay?

The post Arundhati Roy’s essay “The End of Imagination” and the need for Nukes. appeared first on Awaam India.

“A great man is a torch in the darkness, a beacon in superstition’s night, an inspiration and a prophecy. (Robert G. Ingersoll)

Sir Syed Ahmad Khan (1817-1898) is the founder of an educational institution, but this does not end here. He was, in real sense a catalyst for reconstruction of his community, an advocate of rationalism, and a pioneer of modern education.

Post 1857, his concern was not restricted only to subvert misconceptions related to the role of Muslims or build an educational institution. He genuinely attempted to prepare a road map which could help his coreligionists in coping with the challenges they were facing, and also serve as a vade-mecum in future. His notion of modernity held clear view of progressivism and not anti-religious idea.

Also, some historians note that Indian society at that time rigorously held traditionalism and the revolt was a sudden shift; for instance, British historian Percival Spear writes,

‘It is in fact an anachronism to describe the mutiny as the first essay towards modern independence. It was rather in its political aspect, the last effort of the old conservative Indians.’  

Sir Syed believed such approach would disturb onrushing of people to development and urged them to embrace modern scientific education. He was a social reformer, thinker, educationist and journalist. Eminent literary critic Shafey Kidwai calls him,

‘first renaissance Indian Muslim of the 19^th century and one of the prime movers of modern, secular and democratic India.’

Born in a prominent family, Sir Syed’s forefathers would earn much respect from the rulers and also common people. He had much more than the basic amenities of life, but he chose to spend his life in reforming the suppressed section of the society irrespective of their caste, class and religion.

There are occasions where Syed Ahmad strongly criticized discrimination on grounds of caste. For instances, while evaluating Sir Syed’s standpoint on Muslims belonging to lower classes, noted historian Mohammad Sajjad observes that he may not have opposed caste-ism directly but he did not prohibit anyone from entering the then MAO college and it should be noted that a number of those enrolled were ‘low born.’ Sajjad says,

‘When he (Sir Syed) started a school at Moradabad, he made a breakthrough by asking a relevant class of Hindus and Muslims to discontinue the practice of domiciliary education and take recourse to public schools. This was a big step for the age asking all to sit together in a school classroom.’

Moreover, adds Sajjad,

‘When he debated a report on Muslim education (1872), he strongly disagreed with those who talked of excluding the “low born” from the proposed college. He made an elaborate argument that the rule of law and notion of justice disapproved such social exclusion,’.

So, viewing his efforts through skeptical lenses is nonetheless an honest attempt to misunderstand him.

It was the period when Raja Ram Mohan Roy worked to incorporate human reason and modern western thought and Swami Dayanand used rational approach to interpret Vedas, Sir Syed strived to redeem the shares of his community in one hand, and strengthen multiculturalism and unity among the people of different religion.

Faizan Mustaf, renowned jurist and Vice Chancellor of NALSAR, Hyderabad, highlights the rationale of establishing MAO College where Sir Syed said,

‘I shall feel sorry if anybody thinks this college has been established so as to show discrimination between Hindus and Muslims. The main reason behind the establishment of this institution ….was the wretched dependence of Muslims……Their religious fanaticism did not let them avail the educational facilities provided by the government schools and colleges. It was therefore deemed necessary to make some special arrangement for their education.’

On another occasion, while focusing the aim of the college, Sir Syed said; and author of Aligarh’s First Generation David Lelyveld notes that,

‘is to form a class of persons, Mohammadan in religion, Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinion and in intellect.’

In the Discovery of India, Jawahar Lal Nehru describes Sir Syed as,

‘an ardent reformer who wanted to reconcile modern scientific thought with religion by rationalistic interpretations and not by attacking the basic belief. He was anxious to push new education He was in no way communally separatist. Repeatedly he emphasized that religious differences should have no political as national significance.’

The purpose behind quoting all such perspectives is to show why AMU’s nationalism should not be questioned, that has undoubtedly become a political trend in last few years. Sometimes a portrait tries to malign its reputation, or its students become targets of extremist and totalitarian agenda; and now some of them are booked under sedition because of the region they belong to- all these attempts need to be observed insightfully and then only one can understand these are nothing but orchestrated attack on a institution that is a testimony to the secular and democratic character of India.

Furthermore, Sir Syed found journalism as the best tool to reawaken his community. Therefore, he started Aligarh Institute Gazette and Tehzeeb-ul-Akhlaq. This prominent journalist of his time introduced ‘progressive journalism’ and used his intellectual skills to educate and enlighten people.

Sir Syed’s journalism appears to have three fundamental objectives. First, to subvert misconceptions related to the participation of Muslims in the revolt (Loyal Mohammadans of India); second, to educate people about the importance of modern education and science; and third, to promote freedom of speech.

Throughout his writings, besides informative and enlightening pieces, one can find numerous examples where he was against colonial rulers and religious extremists. There is barely any doubt in the fact that he praised the officials but also criticized them very strongly when required. Thus, this founder of media ethics holds an in-depth message for those in the field today- dancing to the government’s tune.

When Sir Syed began working, social and educational reforms were the need of the hour, and even today if we look at the crisis Muslims are facing today, we require an approach similar to Sir Syed’s- and zeal as he exhibited. Today, in an era of aggressive nationalism, we need to deliver the true interpretation of his teachings.

Author is research fellow at the Centre of Women Studies, AMU. He has served the University Literary Club as the Secretary. 

The post Why AMU’s nationalism should not be questioned appeared first on Awaam India.

India is losing the great tradition of ‘spirit of inquiry and dissent’ which we cherished in the past as the progressive history of cultural tolerance and harmony. In today’s India, the political parties in power and opposition are eyeing human individuals as potential voters and trying to woo them by spreading untruths and rumors. Indian society by and large needs introspection and learn from an icon of 20th century who shown us the path of wisdom, non-violence and peace. Gandhi cherished the heterodoxy and learned from the great tradition of dissent.

“In yet another instance of alleged cow vigilantism, a 28-year-old Muslim man was beaten to death in Rajasthan’s (one of the states of India) Alwar district”, reported a national daily, The Hindu in July, 2018. India is now not only the land of Gandhi but it is also the place of mob killers and cow vigilantes.

The regime in power is fueling these mobs by justifying untruth and spreading prejudices and stereotype about minorities. The culture of harmony, tolerance and peace which India has been preaching to the world is succumbing to the contrarian conceptions such as lynching, intolerance and rumor mongering. The traditions of critical inquiry, doubt and argumentation is degrading from the map of India’s cultural history.

India celebrated birth anniversary of her father of nation, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi on 2^nd October this year. Gandhi, a revered leader, led the mass struggle for Independence from the British Raj and dominated the political life of the nation for more than three decades in 1920s to late 1950s and also inspired the generations of leaders all over the world including Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela.

A graduate of law from London and vaishya by caste from Kathiawad (now in the Indian state of Gujarat) had the massive influence of religious ideals of love, peace and harmony available in the ancient Vedas to the Bible, the Quran and other mystic tradition. Gandhi didn’t believe in the rigidity of cultures and traditions and always preached the confluence of ideas as well as generating fresh and new progressive cultures of non-violence and peace.

Gandhi was shot dead by one of the Hindu radicals in 1948. His name was Nathuram Godse. The organization which celebrated the death of Gandhi and distributed sweets openly in the Indian streets,  the RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh), a cultural organization established in 1925 was banned immediately on the recommendations of the then Home Minister, Sardar Patel, also a Gujarati like Gandhi and is being revered now by the same outfit. Godse, a member of Hindu Mahasabha and many other organisation shared the idea of militant Hinduism (Hindutva), which Vinayak Damodar Savarkar espoused in the beginning of 1920s.

In 2014, Narendra Modi, the leader of Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) rose to become a national leader by winning majority of the seats in general election and becoming a prime minister. His involvement in the genocidal riots in Gujarat against religious minorities (Muslims) led United States and other European states to ban Modi’s visit in their respective countries.

Paradoxes of Indian Politics

The irony of our times is that, those who muzzle the dissent are celebrating the birth anniversary of one of the greatest dissenters of all time. Modi’s arrival on national scene has given free hand to the mobs and foot soldiers of his party and affiliate organisation to target violently minorities, Dalits (outcaste/untouchables) and tribals everywhere. From beef ban to the temple politics, it is the rule of mob which has been given shelter by the so called liberally graduated leaders within BJP to polarise votes as a compulsion to win election in one of the diverse country. Once cherished ideals of unity and diversity and the history of composite culture has eroded and society has become more fascistic and authoritarian.

Gandhi’s solutions

To fight (non-violently) is to dissent. To agree is to conform to the existing ideologies, norms, cultures and traditions. Agreeing on nonsensical or irrational things leads towards insanity. The entire history of freedom struggle in the Indian subcontinent is the history of dissent. The non-cooperation was not only dissent in terms of thought but it was call for truth and dissent-in-action.

Gandhi to whom we know as preacher of non-violence (ahimsa) and call for truth (satyagraha) was one of the greatest subversive actor in the world. His shaming of British Raj by wearing loin cloth in the peak of British winter during Round Table Conference (1931) is epitome of subversive action. After the meeting with British Emperor a reporter asked Gandhi if he didn’t feel ashamed to stand in front of the Emperor in his simple dress. ‘Why should I feel ashamed? The Emperor was wearing enough clothes for both of us.’ said Gandhi.

Gandhi’s training since childhood as a religious and ascetic person didn’t halt his critical outlook and curiosity to know different cultures and traditions. One of the basic principles of any dissenting opinion is openness of thought process. One should not restrict oneself in knowing things which is not subscribed by the co-religious or fellow community member.

Restricting any kind of flow of information/knowledge/thought also restricts the persons becoming of an autonomous being. This makes Gandhi an anarchist because customary rules, norms and state-made-laws prohibits him to transcend his boundaries of thinking and his action. He would rather utilize the availability of maximum freedom to cross the boundaries to do creative things for social change. The subversiveness leads towards progressiveness.

In one of the response to a reader in Hind Swaraj (1909), Gandhi says, “I do not expect my views to be accepted all of a sudden”. By this what he meant was, every viewpoint need to go through critical questioning. In Gandhian understanding of swaraj (self-rule) is inherent the conception of individual freedom and free thinking.

Remember Gandhi breaking one of the draconian Salt Laws to realize purna swaraj (complete rule) in March of 1930. With him marched satyagrahis, old and young, men and women hand in hand together.  Gandhi’s bold defiance of the salt law encouraged other Indians to break the law as well. Was Gandhi not disobeying the existing system of laws which were punitive and draconian? Certainly he did. But it was also dissent-in-action which propelled him to transgress the inhumane conditions, where human beings were deprived of their basic needs such as salt.

Should I also not ask critical questions if deprived of my basic needs? Not doing that will amount to erasure of our history of protests, dissents and oppositions. But as reality faced by the civil society members and activists in contemporary times indicate that ‘asking tough and difficult question’ may put me behind bars and I can be branded as anti-party, anti-government, anti-national, anti-state (though all are different things) or clubbing together under an umbrella term called ‘urban naxals’.

By 1909 in Hind Swaraj, Gandhi evaluating the Mazzini-Garibaldi question in regards to Italy’s freedom, is of the view that the Mazzini’s dream of every man in Italy ruling himself has not been materialized even though Italy is independent fore than five decades. For Gandhi who stressed more on means than end is critical of Garibaldi taking up arms and encouraging all Italians to join him in pushing Austria out of their territory.

The gain out of arms struggle (means) is nominal and hence the replacement of Austrian rule is nothing but the tyranny of government (end). Gandhi had argument with Aruna Asaf Ali over means and end question during ‘Quit India’ movement, 1942. Aruna Asaf Ali was in support of milder violence. She justified hiding of revolutionaries to escape arrest. Gandhi on the other hand was firm in his belief that the end of these activities wouldn’t last long, we may achieve our goals. After 110 years of Hind Swaraj and his reflection on Mazzini-Garibaldi debate, India is congruently similar if we reflect the contemporary times within Gandhian credo. Gandhi’s vision of true freedom has not been materialized though India is independent state for more than seven decades.

Way forward

We didn’t have many more anarchist and supporters of dissent in post-independent India, what Gandhi would have supported these ideals, if alive for 125 years (his wish to live long, was stopped with Godse’s bullets.). For him brutal industrialization and marketization is similar to violent action which uproots the flora and fauna and dehumanizes the working class, which needs to be condemned (dissent-in-words).

Without balancing with nature and environment, development do not have any meaning. For Gandhi means is more important than end. The running after GDP in terms of becoming trillion dollar economy and widening gap between rich and poor is nothing but a colonial mindset of loot, control and exploitation.

It would not have been possible for Gandhi to preach passive resistance by breaking the shackles of castiest control and practice of untouchability. The three aims of his life were to get rid of alien rule, abolition of untouchability and discarding the discord between Hindu-Muslim.

The latter two were possibly an annoyance to the majority who have been practicing the differential treatment of the fellow members to maintain hierarchy in the society. Gandhi by making his mission to get rid of these ‘things’ redefined the existing understanding of ethics and public morality. For him constitutional framework of equality and freedom is the last resort to create egalitarian society.

A call for truth (satyagraha), non-violence (ahimsa), self-rule (swaraj), good governance (ramrajya), progress of all (sarvodaya) and his own experiment with truth cannot have been possible until and unless he wouldn’t have asked difficult questions. Gandhi was not for conformity. He stood for dissent and disagreement for constructive purposes. Unfortunately, the fate of those mirrors of our society who are imitating Gandhi’s ideals are dubbed as urban naxals. For me they are the true Gandhians, in spirit and action. On his birth anniversary we all should stand with Gandhi.

The article was originally published at CounterCurrents.Org

The post Gandhi: The Great Dissenter appeared first on Awaam India.